4 ms·

We know that the NSA tapped into computer systems and the backbone of essentially every country on Earth - I don't see how NK would have somehow been excluded.

We know that the NSA tapped into computer systems and the backbone of essentially every country on Earth - I don't see how NK would have somehow been excluded. What's interesting is what information the New York Times includes that is not covered in the NSA document, presumably from unidentified officials and former officials. The document on Der Speigel speaks primarily about taking copies of intelligence from SK hacking efforts against NK and also taking copies of intelligence from NK hacking efforts that had in turn been hacked by SK (and in turn by NSA - "fifth party collection"). The document mentions the NSAs unwillingness to rely on intelligence filtered through so many third parties and made efforts to establish its own foothold. Essentially none of the article is backed by the document as a first source and must have come from the unnamed sources.

Alupis 12y ago
I believe the reason this is "a big deal" is due to how the average US citizen reacted over the recent Sony Breach and the US Government's blame of NK (I might add with no supporting evidence, most industry professionals in high doubt, and even some security companies providing evidence to the contrary of statements by the government). The average US citizen was outraged that some other government would have the audacity to hack anything in the US. This article's goal seems to be to point out that the US Government is hacking all other nation's governments, including NK. (pot calling the kettle black)
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  Interesting. I had thought it was common knowledge at this point that the US regularly hacks and is hacked by other nations. I think the biggest splash this article may have is added narrative supporting the truthiness of USG attribution to NK - something that seems to be held in high doubt by a large percentage of the technical crowd (but that I think seems pretty reasonable).
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    People forget that before Snowden the story was how bad the US's cyber intelligence was compared to China, etc.
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  To be fair, there were other issues involved in the Sony hack that are not present in NSA spying. - The North Koreans attempted to impose a heckler's veto on speech by private citizens of the United States. - The Sony hack had direct and very visible consequences for Americans (economic consequences, release of personal data like salaries and health information, embarrassment of people by releasing private communications). It's entirely possible to take the position that countries are going to engage in espionage, but that there should be norms about how intelligence services behave. Right now we're all trying to figure out what those norms are.
  - xnull1guest 12y ago
    Thank you for mentioning international cyber operation norms. This is the center of US international cyberpolicy efforts. Ontologies describing categories of cyber operations often place destructive attacks like the one against SONY into a category of its own and these are usually considered fair only in very particular scenarios of provocation. An addendum here regarding 'free speech'. There is some question about The Interview being a propaganda effort on behalf of the US State Department (which was given a preview as early as July) since #GOP released emails where CEO Lynton discusses the effects of the ending with RAND Corporation strategist and nuclear deterrence specialist Bruce Bennett and Lynton confirmed analysis of its effectiveness with Senior State Department officials. (It also doesn't help that the script writer was asked specifically to consider changing his character from an anonymous leader of NK to Kim Jong-Un).
  - semperfaux 12y ago
    "To be fair," there are norms about how intelligence services behave. That we, the proletariat, aren't aware of them doesn't make them any less real. That they've either changed or that we've only just discovered what they are doesn't say anything about what they are or used to be. "Norms" don't necessarily make things objectively or even subjectively better. They just make them standard. Asking for norms will get you absolutely nothing, even if you get what you ask for: They'll just establish what they're already doing as normal, and continue to not tell you about the new things they start doing. Because that's what intelligence is; if they told people what they were doing, for better or worse, people would make it harder for them to do.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  It's perfectly fine to be OK with your government hacking other countries while also being mad when those other countries do the same thing (though it's foolish to be shocked when it happens).
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    It's perfectly fine to be OK with your government hacking other countries while also being mad when those other countries do the same thing (though it's foolish to be shocked when it happens). I would disagree that this opinion is fine; this is only fine if one selfishly considers oneself more important than the 7000000000+ other people on the planet.
    - onewaystreet 12y ago
      Do you really not consider yourself and family more important than most of the 7000000000+ other people on the planet? There are plenty of people more important than me, but I wouldn't sacrifice myself for any of them. In the same vein, it would be foolish for me, a US citizen, to say that my government should intentionally weaken itself for the benefit of the citizenry of other countries.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        ...government should intentionally weaken itself for the benefit of the citizenry of other countries. Considering that the majority of Earth's people and natural resources lie outside the US, the long-term best move for the US is to promote global stability and equality. It's not a matter of weakness vs. strength, but short-term vs. long-term thinking. There are plenty of people more important than me, but I wouldn't sacrifice myself for any of them. Personally, I think humanity as a whole is pretty important. I wouldn't sacrifice myself for one other person without a really good reason, but I'm more than happy to accept a small short term decrease in local living standards in exchange for the long term stability and prosperity that would come from raising global living standards. Specifically with regards to surveillance, the NSA is weakening the long-term position of US companies by leaving their systems and software vulnerable to known exploits, and by their actions, encouraging other countries to do the same. It's a negative sum game.
higherpurpose 12y ago
And another thing from Spiegel's article. NSA routinely attacks targets and then makes it look as if someone else did it: > But the loot isn't delivered directly to ROC's IP address. Rather, it is routed to a so-called Scapegoat Target. That means that stolen information could end up on someone else's servers, making it look as though they were the perpetrators. So how do we really know it was North Korea, and not just NSA planting that evidence that NK hacked Sony in those two months? I mean other than "trusting NSA"?
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  We can't really know. There is no way to be perfectly certain. That said one can apply an Occam's calculus using whatever information and reasoning you do trust. I personally trust that, whomever the #GOP was, they were motivated by SONY's role in developing "the movie of terrorism". This seems to me to be consistent with what the group published and with their 'Christmas surprise' showing collaboration between the State Department and SONY on the development of the movie related to its diplomatic value - something I don't think the NSA or allies would do. So I think the group had NK sympathies in mind. Granted, this doesn't rule out attribution to other states or hacktivists who hold these sympathies.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  This post is another example of a trend in this thread to down vote the on-topic posts. Am I the only one that noticed that the highest voted comment in this thread is about Clapper splitting the bill? Why aren't we discussing the rest of the article?

Alupis 12y ago

I believe the reason this is "a big deal" is due to how the average US citizen reacted over the recent Sony Breach and the US Government's blame of NK (I might add with no supporting evidence, most industry professionals in high doubt, and even some security companies providing evidence to the contrary of statements by the government). The average US citizen was outraged that some other government would have the audacity to hack anything in the US. This article's goal seems to be to point out that the US Government is hacking all other nation's governments, including NK. (pot calling the kettle black)

xnull1guest 12y ago
Interesting. I had thought it was common knowledge at this point that the US regularly hacks and is hacked by other nations. I think the biggest splash this article may have is added narrative supporting the truthiness of USG attribution to NK - something that seems to be held in high doubt by a large percentage of the technical crowd (but that I think seems pretty reasonable).
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  People forget that before Snowden the story was how bad the US's cyber intelligence was compared to China, etc.
GabrielF00 12y ago
To be fair, there were other issues involved in the Sony hack that are not present in NSA spying. - The North Koreans attempted to impose a heckler's veto on speech by private citizens of the United States. - The Sony hack had direct and very visible consequences for Americans (economic consequences, release of personal data like salaries and health information, embarrassment of people by releasing private communications). It's entirely possible to take the position that countries are going to engage in espionage, but that there should be norms about how intelligence services behave. Right now we're all trying to figure out what those norms are.
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  Thank you for mentioning international cyber operation norms. This is the center of US international cyberpolicy efforts. Ontologies describing categories of cyber operations often place destructive attacks like the one against SONY into a category of its own and these are usually considered fair only in very particular scenarios of provocation. An addendum here regarding 'free speech'. There is some question about The Interview being a propaganda effort on behalf of the US State Department (which was given a preview as early as July) since #GOP released emails where CEO Lynton discusses the effects of the ending with RAND Corporation strategist and nuclear deterrence specialist Bruce Bennett and Lynton confirmed analysis of its effectiveness with Senior State Department officials. (It also doesn't help that the script writer was asked specifically to consider changing his character from an anonymous leader of NK to Kim Jong-Un).
- semperfaux 12y ago
  "To be fair," there are norms about how intelligence services behave. That we, the proletariat, aren't aware of them doesn't make them any less real. That they've either changed or that we've only just discovered what they are doesn't say anything about what they are or used to be. "Norms" don't necessarily make things objectively or even subjectively better. They just make them standard. Asking for norms will get you absolutely nothing, even if you get what you ask for: They'll just establish what they're already doing as normal, and continue to not tell you about the new things they start doing. Because that's what intelligence is; if they told people what they were doing, for better or worse, people would make it harder for them to do.
onewaystreet 12y ago
It's perfectly fine to be OK with your government hacking other countries while also being mad when those other countries do the same thing (though it's foolish to be shocked when it happens).
- nitrogen 12y ago
  It's perfectly fine to be OK with your government hacking other countries while also being mad when those other countries do the same thing (though it's foolish to be shocked when it happens). I would disagree that this opinion is fine; this is only fine if one selfishly considers oneself more important than the 7000000000+ other people on the planet.
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    Do you really not consider yourself and family more important than most of the 7000000000+ other people on the planet? There are plenty of people more important than me, but I wouldn't sacrifice myself for any of them. In the same vein, it would be foolish for me, a US citizen, to say that my government should intentionally weaken itself for the benefit of the citizenry of other countries.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      ...government should intentionally weaken itself for the benefit of the citizenry of other countries. Considering that the majority of Earth's people and natural resources lie outside the US, the long-term best move for the US is to promote global stability and equality. It's not a matter of weakness vs. strength, but short-term vs. long-term thinking. There are plenty of people more important than me, but I wouldn't sacrifice myself for any of them. Personally, I think humanity as a whole is pretty important. I wouldn't sacrifice myself for one other person without a really good reason, but I'm more than happy to accept a small short term decrease in local living standards in exchange for the long term stability and prosperity that would come from raising global living standards. Specifically with regards to surveillance, the NSA is weakening the long-term position of US companies by leaving their systems and software vulnerable to known exploits, and by their actions, encouraging other countries to do the same. It's a negative sum game.

higherpurpose 12y ago

And another thing from Spiegel's article. NSA routinely attacks targets and then makes it look as if someone else did it: > But the loot isn't delivered directly to ROC's IP address. Rather, it is routed to a so-called Scapegoat Target. That means that stolen information could end up on someone else's servers, making it look as though they were the perpetrators. So how do we really know it was North Korea, and not just NSA planting that evidence that NK hacked Sony in those two months? I mean other than "trusting NSA"?

xnull1guest 12y ago
We can't really know. There is no way to be perfectly certain. That said one can apply an Occam's calculus using whatever information and reasoning you do trust. I personally trust that, whomever the #GOP was, they were motivated by SONY's role in developing "the movie of terrorism". This seems to me to be consistent with what the group published and with their 'Christmas surprise' showing collaboration between the State Department and SONY on the development of the movie related to its diplomatic value - something I don't think the NSA or allies would do. So I think the group had NK sympathies in mind. Granted, this doesn't rule out attribution to other states or hacktivists who hold these sympathies.
anonbanker 12y ago
This post is another example of a trend in this thread to down vote the on-topic posts. Am I the only one that noticed that the highest voted comment in this thread is about Clapper splitting the bill? Why aren't we discussing the rest of the article?